Wednesday, September 13, 2017

A useful reminder

Courtesy of reader M. T., here's a graphic describing how not to conduct an argument . . . er . . . debate . . . er . . . discussion.  Yeah, that's it:  discussion.  (Click the image for a larger view.)

The first, attacking the speaker rather than his/her argument, is frequently encountered on the Internet.  Another useful link on that subject is Wikipedia's list of fallacies.  I'm sure many of us have been guilty of some of them from time to time.

Of course, XKCD has the last word on this subject:



Anonymous said...

But those techniques generally work...

How do you win a debate against someone who violates every one of these rules?

Mad Jack said...

Read SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 1) by Vox Day (Author), Milo Yiannopoulos (Foreword).

I've watched a few screaming meemies get shredded in debates in newsgroups and various other social media sites. It requires above average writing skills and a very solid knowledge of logical fallacies and the practical application of same. It also requires that people actually read the missive, which tends to be a bit rare.

MadMcAl said...

Godwin's Law is sorely missing.
How often is an argument "won" by reducio at hitlerum?

Dan Lane said...

SJW: "You're literally Hitler! Microaggressor, raciss, sexiss, cisgenedered, heteronormative captialist pigdog!"

Normal human being: "... So? Was there a point hiding in there anywhere, camouflaged so well I couldn't see it?"

SJW: "It means I win, you lose!"

Normal human being: "That's not how the structure of rational argument works."

Spectators will generally gravitate towards either the one that makes them feel good or the one that makes sense to them. When one examines the many, many contradictory points one must hold to accept the former's position(s) then it becomes clear that one cannot hold tightly to the rules of logic. Or to put it another way, the normal human being is attempting to put hold an argument, the latter is attempting to shut down opposition "By Any Means Necessary."

In the end, all things must be sacrificed on the altar of antisocial justice. Also an organ of exceptional sensitivity must be kept to the winds of what defines said mockery of justice, lest the mob turn and devour the one that strikes dischord- there can only be one voice (but many genders). A fearful, tremulous existence it must be, to be constantly have one's foundation so constantly shifting.

When such things become common tactics, mockery and derision can be deployed to better outcome than ordered, practical logic alone. Also, given the predictability of the SJW, Bingo cards. If they're going to keep playing from a decades old commie playbook with a straight face, we might as well get some enjoyment out of it. *chuckle*

Borepatch said...

Not sure if you ever saw the old Usenet "Emily Postnews" satire:

Will said...

I was an avid reader of that comic strip, but his politics so badly intruded on the run-up to the election that I decided to remove his link.